Thompson v. J.C. Billion, Inc.
2013 MT 20
Mont.2013Background
- Thompson worked as Pit Stop manager from Mar 1, 2009 to Jul 31, 2010 and logged 819.21 overtime hours without overtime pay.
- Thompson’s duties included customer greeting, vehicle inspection, ticketing, upselling, showing customers to waiting area, reviewing estimates, delivering vehicles, and collecting payment; he also supervised lube technicians.
- Despite title, Thompson did not have authority to hire, discipline, or promote staff.
- Thompson’s compensation was base salary plus commission with a guaranteed minimum, plus annual bonus and per-report-card payments; he resigned July 31, 2010.
- Thompson filed a wage claim alleging overtime owed; Billion claimed exemptions as a manager/executive and as a salesman under FLSA; a hearing determined Thompson was a salesman and not entitled to overtime.
- The District Court upheld the Department’s denial of overtime and rejected Thompson’s waiver/Reg. 779.372 arguments; Thompson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of excemption defense raised | Thompson argues Billion waived its salesman exemption. | Billion raised the exemption early and Thompson was put on notice. | No waiver; defense properly raised and proceeding compliant. |
| Overtime entitlement under FLSA and Montana law | Thompson contends he is not exempt as a salesman/service adviser. | Billion contends Thompson is a salesman exempt under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10) and § 39-3-406(2)(d). | Statute plainly exempts salesmen who are primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles; regulation § 779.372(c)(1) is not controlling; Thompson not entitled to overtime. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kemp v. State Bd. of Personnel Appeals, 989 P.2d 317 (Mont. 1999) (narrow reading of exemptions against employer)
- Brannan v. Deel Motors, 475 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1973) (regulation conflicts with statute; narrower definition rejected)
- Walton v. Greenbriar Ford, Inc., 370 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2004) (regulation conflicts with statutory mandate; narrower reading rejected)
- Magana v. Com. of the N. Mariana Islands, 107 F.3d 1436 (9th Cir. 1997) (exemption pleadings and defenses; agency interpretations)
- Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (agency regulation upheld where consistent with statute; Chevron step two applied)